Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I'm not sure that I'd agree with the statement that an addiction is necessarily a disease...Calling
it a disease I take issue with because when someone's addicted to something, usually it
starts off with choice.
People who become alcoholics, or drug addicts or over eaters...there's usually something
else behind it; but I wouldn't call it a disease, because people with cancer don't choose to
get cancer.
So I just think you've got to be careful in how you classify this sort of behavior as
a disease; if you take Bulimia or Anorexia...they are disorders. They're not referred to as
diseases, NOT that I'm a doctor!
These people who develop these unhealthy eating habits, and they get very, very big or very,
very small and they say "I've got a disease.", not quite.
A lot of the overeating stuff comes from comfort...
If you want to call it a faulty coping mechanism, fair enough. Is it a disease? If its a coping
mechanism, or any addiction is symptomatic or its got an element of a coping mechanism
in it, then call it a coping mechanism. Or call it a behavioral problem, a disorder...or
maybe even some sort of imbalance from a cognitive standpoint.
I just think its dangerous to call it a disease, because when people say "I've got a disease."
you take the responsibility out of that person's control.
Even though you might have a moment of weakness, you still have the ability to say "I choose
to do this." and when you can choose to do something its not a disease. Because people
don't choose to get diseases; no-one does that! "I think I'll develop cancer today...I
think I might go out and catch ***.". No-one does that, therefore it can't be a disease
in that sense...Oprah and the Americans are the worst for that; they call everything a
disease.
"I've got sex addiction, I've got a disease." No you don't! There's something wrong there
definitely, probably psychologically there's something not quite right that you need to
have assistance with, but don't call it a disease is all I'm saying.
Dis-ease perhaps, but not a disease.
With drugs, and alcohol...I know a lot of people who take drugs, drink a lot.
Who do you hang around with?
I know that they are not addicts, and I know this because doing it because they have to.
They're doing it because its a social thing, and they get high or whatever and its a good
feeling for them; but they're not then going (I need to do it again).
So its recreational?
Yeah, yeah. Its the same with the alcohol.
If people are taking drugs or going for a drink...OK its a recreational social thing,
until its not. Its never the case that the first time you do drugs, you do it at home
by yourself with no-one else around! You do it socially.
It feels good and whatever and then you do it again with the same people or with other
people...you do that a couple more times...you start to lose control and not necessarily
realize that you're losing control and before you know it, you do it because it feels good
but its what you've always done and then: you're doing it to feel normal because you're
now addicted!
Its a slippery slope. This is sort of why I would never say that being addicted to whatever
it is, is a disease; not really. Its something you don't think you'll lose control over until
you do.
I used to know a guy, he did drugs. He thought he was in control, I don't think he was in
control because he was always high all the time. He was always either high or just coming
down, and hanging because of it. It's like "How can you be in control if you're trying
every single substance under the sun?".
I suppose one of the reasons that people say its a disease, is because you can cure a disease;
you can cure addiction...Cigarettes and things like that its all to do with (Even if you
take cigarettes) you're going into the shop (its a choice!).
So in one instance it could be you over drinking, or overeating, or taking cigarettes or taking
recreational drugs...
Even if you take sex addiction, having sex is a natural thing. If it becomes an addiction
and it gets to a point where its affecting your well-being physically or mentally....that
one's a little bit...that's obviously a disorder...there's something wrong there I'm simply saying: If
you're choosing to do something to your detriment how can you call it a disease? It's choice
first isn't it? It's no longer choice after you're addicted but by that point, you've
already repeated the action how many times to make yourself addicted...and by that point
it's hard to break free!
Would it be down to education, lack of education?
Lack of education my ***, come on!
Sometimes maybe. But there are too many people who are ensnared by alcoholism and these addictions
that are legal for the most part. It can't really be a lack of education, just people
do what they do and they don't care. It's not as simple as that but I wouldn't call
that a disease; on the cigarettes they have "Smoking kills you." "Smoking reduces your
life expectancy.". We already know what alcohol abuse does to the body and all the rest of
it so how can you tell me its a lack of education? Just people don't really care.
The NHS, they get swamped with people Friday and Saturday night. They were saying "We could
start charging people, who are coming in with injuries sustained whilst under the influence
of alcohol and/or drugs.". They were mostly talking about alcohol. What do you think to
that sort of thing because that is again people...are they addicted? I suppose if you're getting
repeat offenders...
I don't think its addiction, I think its irresponsible behavior. Charging people is not gonna work.
So do you let people absolutely ***-faced which is what they do now? That doesn't work
either. What does work?
What if you were to go into a hospital and you needed your stomach pumped and they refused
to do it because of your irresponsible behavior, would that stop people?
People get ***-faced and out of their minds because they know if something happens, there's
a safety net there. Let's say that didn't exist, lets say we had something in place
where people refused outright to supply treatment to people who were drinking and under the
influence and near death....
If they did that, people would have to moderate their drinking if they wanted to stay alive,
that's natural law taking over there. Extreme, but...it would work. Better than what we have
now.
The problem is you have a system where people want to be taken care of yet demand the right
to have a say in how things work. If people wanna have a say they need to prove that their
opinions are worth something; add value, therefore they need to be responsible adults. If there's
not that and you've just got people who want to drink themselves into oblivion or want
to engage in negative sort of behavior that isn't progressive...then they need to be looked
after.
But you can't have a society with both types of people. At the minute we're living in a
situation where people want both, "I want the government to take care of me, but I want
a say in exactly how things run.".
One thing that can be said for the "addiction is not a disease." is people's reaction to
people who are classed as addicts. So you could say, "I have a disease, I have cancer."
and people go "Oh, I'm very sorry for that." but if you say "I'm addicted to ***." its
like "Oh right, great; you've chosen to do that.".
Usually it starts off as a choice. It might not be a choice now that you're addicted,
or so much of a choice...or it might not be so much of a rational choice. But unless someone
else stuck that needle in your arm without your consent...every single time, no-one really
cares.
It can be difficult but you have that free choice to stop...
Usually before it goes too far but because it feels good in the moment; and everyone
else is doing it, the alarm bells don't ring if they ring at all, far too late.